
Dr Aafia case: IHC issues contempt notice to PM, cabinet
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Monday, hearing Siddiqui's petition, issued the notices against the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet over the government's failure to submit a report in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case.
Justice Ejaz expressed strong displeasure over the government for not submitting the required report about why the government was refusing to sign an amicus brief on Aafia case.
He noted in his written order, 'The government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.'
The IHC office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the federal government will be respondents. The replies of all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today (July 21).
Justice Ejaz stated that ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this High Court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly, and bringing it almost to its last breaths.
'This is yet another instance. The heresy I speak of now is besieging the dispensation of Justice by a Judge of the High Court by the device of the 'weekly roster' controlled by the office of the Chief Justice. It is both heart-rending and amusing at the same time, a blend of paradox that this High Court has become,' said the judge.
Justice Ejaz mentioned that he had passed the previous order giving the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the Additional Advocate General that inaction would leave him no choice but to proceed in contempt. The government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case.
He stated that for whatever reason, the government's case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court. The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this Court through its roster. 'The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold Court by the High Court establishment when he is on leave,' added the judge.
He pointed out that his leave was meant to start today and the roster of judges sitting for this week therefore did not include his name. 'The leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which I had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice in this and the other eases that ordered for listing today.'
The judge also said that on Thursday or perhaps Friday, he was informed through his PS by the Office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the Chief Justice. That seemed to me a trivial matter and he asked his PS to move an application accordingly.
He further said that he was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it.
He maintained, 'Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the Motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former. The correct legal position is that the Office cannot use the shoulder of the Chief Justice in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a Judge in an ongoing case.'
Justice Ejaz stated that the motivation of a Judge to hold Court on a day on which he is 'officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold Court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. 'I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold Court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. Gone are the days when a Judge could pass an order even while playing Golf or dining with his family if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a Courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case – were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business.
He said this is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. 'To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses.'
Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case until September 1.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Aafia remarks 'taken out of context', says Dar
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has clarified that his recent remarks about Dr Aafia Siddiqui's case, made in response to a question regarding ex-prime minister Imran Khan's legal situation at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, were being taken out of context. In a statement posted on X, Dar said: "Yesterday, in response to a question about Imran Khan's case at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, the reference to Dr Aafia Siddiqui's case is being taken out of context." "During the tenures of PML-N governments, we have consistently provided all diplomatic and legal assistance for Dr Aafia Siddiqui's release, and we will continue to do so until the matter of her release is resolved." Stressing the importance of respecting judicial systems, he explained that every country had its judicial and legal procedures, "which are to be respected, whether it is Pakistan or the US". "Our government's stance on the issue of Dr Aafia Siddiqui's release is clear and unequivocal," the foreign minister maintained. Currently on an official visit to the United States, FM Dar had addressed the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, DC. While responding to a question regarding former prime minister Imran Khan's imprisonment, Dar had referred to Dr Siddiqui to underscore the principle of respecting judicial processes. He said that Pakistan had not interfered in Dr Siddiqui's case because "the Americans had followed their judicial system". Similarly, he added, Imran Khan had been sentenced by Pakistan's judiciary after due legal process. "When the due process is followed, others do not have the right to interfere," he said. The remarks were sharply criticised by Dr Siddiqui's legal team, with her lawyer calling the comparison "idiotic".


Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Senators decry judicial overreach
A 12-member panel, headed by Adviser to PM on NHLH Irfan Siddiqui, was constituted by PM. PHOTO: FILE Listen to article The Senate on Friday took exception to the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) move to issue stay orders on matters under discussion in parliamentary committees. Terming it a serious breach of privilege, the lawmakers called for the matter to be referred to the Senate's Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges. They also urged that the attorney general be summoned to explain the judiciary's overreach into parliamentary affairs. During the session, chaired by Senator Irfan Siddiqui, Senator Saleem Mandviwalla of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) objected to the stay orders issued by the IHC and Lahore High Court (LHC) against upper house proceedings. "I have never seen stay orders against parliamentary proceedings before. This should be taken seriously," he said, urging the Senate to summon the attorney general. "We never interfere in court proceedings, but judges issuing stay orders against committee actions is direct interference in Parliament. It's becoming a joke." Shahadat Awan supported the call. "We will seek input from the law minister and summon the attorney general for clarification and action." Senator Anusha Rehman said such actions violated Article 66 of the Constitution and constituted a breach of privilege. "Issuing a stay order against a member of Parliament is a direct attack on their privilege," she said, urging the House to refer the matter to the privileges committee and have those responsible appear before it. "No one can stop us from speaking in this House," she added. Senator Kamran Murtaza expressed concern over reports of lawyers being picked up in Balochistan. "If someone has committed a crime, they should be punished under the law," he said. The Presiding Officer responded that a report on the matter would be sought.


Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
PARTLY FACETIOUS: ‘Have we ever been rated as investment grade?'
'Hallelujah!' 'Hallelujah is Hebrew and can be broken down into two words – halel means joyous song, praise, and Yah is a shortened form of Yahweh or Jehovah, Allah.' 'Why did you do that?' 'Do what? I merely translated…' 'Why did you translate the Hebrew Yahweh into the Muslim Allah?' 'Dear me, learn to distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a policy of a state that justifies genocide and…' 'It's hard given what Israel is doing, but anyway that's not why I said Hallelujah.' 'I know why you said it. Because we have been upgraded by Standard and Poor's from CCC (substantial risk) to B- (highly speculative) which, as per the definition on their website, retains us in the junk category.' 'I believe we would need six more upgrades to get out of the junk category and into the investment grade category.' 'Have we ever been rated as investment grade?' 'Never, I believe the highest rating we got was B+.' 'There you go so we need only two more upgrades to reach the historic high.' 'Why do you keep the bar so low?' 'Why do you take it up so high – I mean to me, it means that you are succumbing to hopelessness and last I heard this is not the Islamic way and…' 'I was merely trying to point out to the SPs that it's rather a long road and…' 'SPs?' 'Same Pagers – we need to aim higher than the historic high, and we need…' 'OK, but remember one thing. In a world gone crazy…' 'Yes, but there is change – the under 40s in the West including the US, and President Trump's support base are all challenging the Israel First Policy of successive US administrations…' 'That has not changed policy yet, that would require another twenty to thirty years, when these under 40s take over the reins of government and…' 'Hamm and you have Germany that allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline that had supplied cheap Russian fuel to German industries resulting in German deindustrialization, you have Ursula Von Der Layen, a German heading the European Union, hell-bent to compel member states to borrow hundreds of billions to set up a defence industry capable of fighting Russia, and…' 'Hatred does more harm to the hater than the hatee I reckon, and especially when there is unreasoning hatred….' 'I heard the cabinet collectively hates The Man Who Must Remain…' 'Good that you mentioned collective, because the 2016 Supreme Court verdict in the Mustafa Impex case insisted that the cabinet instead of the prime minister can take a decision…' 'Don't be facetious.' 'Hallelujah.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025